Amazing that the DNC is running an ad today - with Obama front and center.

The DNC is hurting itself.

Then at the end, a flash of text, says some special interests will have less regulation if the Republicans win.

But they don't say what Obama will do if the democrats win.

Unbelievably, there is such incompetence that the democrats can't even put together a coherent message at the end. One would think that the democrats could at least put together a message that made sense and gave people something to vote for. I think Clinton got so upset that he started to publicly state the private advise he had given, but was ignored.

It appears that the country has a developing problem with Obama ignoring people.

The amount of easy stuff that Obama has ignored is astonishing. If the White House has been run with anywhere near the level of incompetence that the democrats' campaign has been run with this year, the nation is in trouble.

If the democrats lose the House, Obama should resign on Wednesday morning.

Tomorrow will be a clear statement of NO CONFIDENCE in Obama - and the nation needs a change now.

In Europe, when a party loses an election, the party leader resigns, and a new leader is brought in. Obama should accept this model and get out now - before there is more damage to the nation.

America needs someone who understands the Economic Crisis, understands how much focus the Economy demands - and understands how to create jobs.

Apparently Obama doesn't understand much concerning the Economy. The stimulus was a failure, but that could have been predicted since it funded so many pet democratic projects. The nation needs to put Obama behing them - Obama needs to go. If Obama resigns on Wednesday, the economy will start to recover immediately.

Hey, where is everybody?
"DNC spokesman Brad Woodhouse seems to agree that Dems should have been more aggressive in touting health reform."

I'll never understand that narrative. That was a floater chucked into the thin soup of a very weak economic recovery and it is still sitting there.

Aggressively touting what exactly, touting who is going to pay for it? The CBO saying it will pay for itself (sound familiar?)?And the bill itself, in addition to its timing (saying "sure, it isn't perfect" is so annoying) is part of the timing disaster, not the marketing effort.

When we look back over this period, without even knowing how tomorrow will turn out, I still think the Dems supporting Blanche Lincoln over Bill Halter was a turning point.

When you think you can play it safe and not keep growing your ideas and your support base, then you are going to start losing ground. The Dem party as a whole needed a more active strategy for AFTER the 2008 elections.

Like in a war, you don't just invade without a plan. Even if you win, you can still lose.

""Mike Tomasky, on the meaning of tomorrow's expected losses: "The Democrats are completely unable to defend their vision of society."

You beat me to that one. He's right, of course. Figuring out why is the challenge."

How about because it is indefensible? That wasn't much of a challenge.

Obama was supposed to be the greatest expositor and defender "of all times!" and is out their omnipresently defending it each day, while trashing those "they" people who are the enemies of all that is good. So is Biden.

Fun list of Republicans supporting Palin and denying any coterie of bigwigs who'd move to stop her from running...
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/11/t-paw-romney-steele-come-to-palins-defense-over-story.php?ref=fpb

In looking back over this period, it will be the fact that the American People ignored the lack of experience and the lack of qualifications of Obama during the campaigns of 2008.

That led to a completely disasterous lack of ability for the country to handle the Economic Crisis.

The result is the largest, most horrible example of affirmative action gone bad. Too many people who knew better convinced themselves that experience didn't matter. It does. Qualifications matter.

The agenda of the democrats has reached a level of disconnect with the American People that few comprehend. Perhaps this is simply a historical accident, that somehow the opposition to the Iraqi War became so isolated, that the democrats were unable to develop a solid economic platform.

However, the truth is clear: Obama and the democratic party are unable or unwilling to handle the Economic Crisis. The democrats initially, in 2009, appeared to view the stimulus as an opportunity to fund their pet projects, not as an essential job creation measure. Too much money was diverted.

The quicker Obama resigns, the better for the economy.

It is that simple. Obama is now dragging down the Economy to such an extent that even if he were to reverse everything immediately, including his health care plan, the uncertainty surrounding what Obama would try next would still drag down the recovery.

"I'll never understand that narrative. That was a floater chucked into the thin soup of a very weak economic recovery and it is still sitting there.

Aggressively touting what exactly, touting who is going to pay for it? The CBO saying it will pay for itself (sound familiar?)?And the bill itself, in addition to its timing (saying "sure, it isn't perfect" is so annoying) is part of the timing disaster, not the marketing effort.

Posted by: shrink2"

The law does a lot of really good things for a lot of people. Not talking about the act isn't going to improve the economic situation and if Republicans wanted to drive the conversation that way, I think it's a hell of a lot easier for a Democrat to defend vote for the health care law than to try and explain why the job market hasn't recovered yet.

Why should Sharon Angle disavow the comment about "domestic enemies" in Congress? There are elected reps who only adhere to the constitution because they are forced to do so. IMO the term "domestic enemy" is highly appropriate. Being elected and taking an oath of office doesn't change the tiger's stripes.

12BB, so much courage in the face of Tundra Barbie.
----------------------------
Oh, I think they really fear Boss Hawg Limbaugh. And the timing is wrong. When the primary season starts, ain't a one of them who'll be singing the praises of the Alaska Woman. Then, it will be "who she?".

One issue that comes up: the election in 2008 didn't really mean what people think it does, the nation wasn't turning to the left.

That is the one falsehood that hurt Obama: in 2008 Obama set out to fool the American people, and Obama only ended up fooling himself.

Obama fooled himself into thinking that the country would support a far-left agenda. Obama fooled himself into believing that his personal popularity was any more than anyone else's.

Obama fooled himself into believing that a centrist platform electing a leftist meant a mandate for leftist policies - no a vote for someone talking centrist means a vote for centrist policies.

I still hold that Obama's greatest sin was pulling out of the Campaign Finance Reform system - and its limitations on spending. That one act led to more commercials, which led to more votes, which in turn led Obama to fool himself.

Obama would have been far better off on a level campaign cash playing field. That way, Obama could have weighed himself on an equal basis with McCain.

The extra cash became the seed from which the POISON APPLE came - the 60 votes for Obama. Without the 60 votes, Obama would have had to compromise with the Republicans and tomorrow's election would have been different.

Instead Obama TOOK THE BITE FROM THE POISON APPLE, more cast to Georgia to tip that Senate race, getting Specter to switch parties, questionable ballots in Minnesota, a protracted court battle in Minnesota, and changing the law in Massachusetts to get back to 60 votres in the Senate.

All political poison to Obama - who ate the Poison Apple quickly and after Scott Brown was elected, ran to the tree to eat several more Poison Apples.

Greg wrote: "* As rough as the polls look for Harry Reid, Politico finds that Dems in Nevada are convinced he will squeak out a victory. Whether they're right or not is an open question, but my sense, too, is that they really believe this."

12BB, it might not matter if Limbaugh and company stop singing her praises. If the same forces that thought it would be a good idea to nominate O'Donnell, Angle, and McMahon come into play a year from now, it won't matter if the top ten items on McConnell's to-do list are to knock off Obama. It ain't happening.

Barrack Obama ran as a moderate/centrist and behaved like a leftist/progressive. The U.S. voting population (like it or not) tends to be center/right. Independent voters who bought the centrist rhetoric garbage that he uttered are going to respond by disavowing him. Its as simple as that.

Since (IIRC) you don't seem to be able to detect a shred of mendacity in any fools fable that emanates from the maw of a DEM or liberal mouthpiece (Grayson comes immediately to mind)...

How is it that you can claim Perry Mason-like powers when it comes to the GOP?

BTW: Romney is on record today saying that Palin would bring beaucoup energy to the primary process, which he welcomes. Remember, Romney also was the spearcatcher of some pretty vicious and bigoted bi-partisan "on background" BS re: "he can't win because of his religion."

I read Think Progress' post, and in the update Obama, in a CYA, "revised" his "enemies" comment:

"What I'm saying is you're an opponent of this particular provision, comprehensive immigration reform, which is something very different."

First: the toothpaste is out of the tube. What was said is very clear, and Obama was clearly pitting one group against another.

Second: American citizens who simply oppose Obama and his policies should NEVER be labeled by a sitting President as "enemies." Nixon tried that and rightly suffered as a consequence. It is an abuse of his office and stature.

Being called "not nice names" beforehand is no justification for Obama being so thin-skinned and divisive.

Obama is the President, and should be above such juvenile tactics. Tellingly, even the evil "Bush-hitler" never stooped so low, and Think Progress had no examples of this to quote.

BGinC, it is as simple as that. Obama ran as a centrist, loaded his administration with leftists and took a leftist approach to government. Independents wanted change, but Obama's swerve left of center is not what they expected.

Second: American citizens who simply oppose Obama and his policies should NEVER be labeled by a sitting President as "enemies."
...
Posted by: marybel9999 | November 1, 2010 6:22 PM
===================

Funny, I recall any criticism of the Bush_Cheney Administration as "treasonous" because it was a "time of war".

As usual, this hypocrisy went right out the window when a Democrat was elected President, just as Republican claims to be committed to the "Rule of Law" disappeared when with the election of G.W. Bush.

The correct analysis is that little has changed with the voting public since 2008

Obama is the one who changed - Obama changed from "bipartisanship" which means compromise with the other side - arriving at centrist policies.

Obama went back on his pledge. Plain and simple. One may make one's own personal assessment whether Obama INTENTIONALLY DECEIVED THE AMERICAN PUBLIC OR NOT.

I tend to believe it was a pre-planned deception. Add to this the recent Bob Woodward book, outlining another area in which Obama quickly set about doing something completely different than his campaign words.

P.S. BGinC, when the demographics of the electorate are compiled after tomorrow, they will show the Independents returned the Republicans to power. Neither the Dems or the Reps can, by themselves, elect presidents or legislatures. The Republicans had best not think that they have some kind of mandate. They won't have one just like Obama didn't get one and if they don't handle whatever power they gain to suit the Indies, they will lose it again in two years.

There's a real dilemma here for Republicans. They've pushed her up front and fostered her supporters' passions. I checked today to see if Limbaugh had again complained about Rove's dissing of her in the Telegraph (UK) but no mention I could find this time. Of course, as with O'Donnell, Rove has it right here. She'll be a disaster for the party.

Of the characters noted above coming to her defense, they have to right now and that won't change unless or until Palin's stature and/or her "Maybe the country needs me up top" insanity changes. And there's only one way the party will avoid the catastrophe - if Palin is convinced by others (like Rove and Kristol) that her future will be far rosier if she "passes the torch". Figuring out how to do that bit of the light fantastic will be their marketing challenge.

Ha ha, Republicans returning to power tomorrow. Since the advent of the Imperial Presidency, the White House is the seat of power in this country and Republicans don't have a shot at it until 2016 (unless I am wrong about 2012 in which case I will retract this message on page 57 way down at the bottom in 4pt font).

Republicans can court the TP all they want on the House floor, harass the President etc., but those antics already cost them enough Independents they won't win the Senate majority tomorrow. We'll see if they learn anything.

Clawrence, many do yes, they actually understand that in the long term what benefits small and medium business sectors stimulate growth and jobs. Lowering taxes is a positive factor for them. They believe the federal government should behave more like individuals and most state governments. When revenues decline, so should spending.

Clawrence, many do yes, they actually understand that in the long term what benefits small and medium business sectors stimulate growth and jobs. Lowering taxes is a positive factor for them. They believe the federal government should behave more like individuals and most state governments. When revenues decline, so should spending.

Posted by: actuator"

Care to provide evidence based on voting patterns that voters care about deficits?

DDAWD, please educate me about how "voting patterns" in and of themselves, establish whether independent voters care about deficits. There are many voters today who are concerned with the deficits and the national debt which they see as being long term anchors that will ultimately drag the economy down. Somebody has to pay for this stuff eventually. As I've said before this is creating taxation without representation, since this is taxing the unborn who will pay after geezers like me are gone.

"DDAWD, please educate me about how "voting patterns" in and of themselves, establish whether independent voters care about deficits. There are many voters today who are concerned with the deficits and the national debt which they see as being long term anchors that will ultimately drag the economy down. Somebody has to pay for this stuff eventually. As I've said before this is creating taxation without representation, since this is taxing the unborn who will pay after geezers like me are gone.

Posted by: actuator"

I'm not saying deficits are unimportant. I'm saying people don't vote based on deficits. If the job market was better, deficits could be ten times as high as they are now and we'd probably be looking at Democratic gains tomorrow.

Yes. And it's possible that you have a penis so large that it frightens the ladies. Or that I do. The chances of either of those two latter possibilities is, you'll be pleased to hear, far greater than the one you suggest.

I will grant that Dubya is better throwing a baseball than Obama, who throws like . . . well, like he is trying to fling a plastic bag of dog poop into a distant trash can. But it made me happy to see the Pelosiville Giants beat his Rangers last night!

Yes, Bush didn't call people traitors. That's what he had Cheney and Rove around for.

srw3 wrote,
"Enjoy your wins tomorrow...write witty posts about the end of Obama's presidency and the new glorious republican majority which given its history will make deficits skyrocket while giving huge tax breaks to the top 1% and who knows, invade an oil rich country, topple its government, and then watch helplessly as that country descends into 6 years of sectarian violence, ethnic (religious) cleansing, massive civilian casualties, and chaos, because they had no plan for the aftermath of the invasion..."

and then,

shrink2 wrote,
"Ha ha, Republicans returning to power tomorrow. Since the advent of the Imperial Presidency, the White House is the seat of power in this country and Republicans don't have a shot at it until 2016"
-------

You liberals need to get your stories straight. Unless srw3 is expecting something catastrophic to put John Boehner in the White House, he thinks a Republican led House will invade a country, topple its government, give huge tax breaks to the top 1%, and drive up the deficit. That sure is a lot of work for a party that doesn't control the Presidency or maybe even the Senate.

It refers to an unrealistic sense of superiority, a sustained view of oneself as better than others that causes the narcissist to view other with disdain or as inferior. It also refers to a sense of uniqueness, the belief that few others have in common with oneself and that one can only be understood by a few or very special people.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | November 1, 2010
-------

Took you long enough to get Obama figured out. Some of us knew it all along.

Full disclosure: as a small lad I loved Wm. McCovey, Wm. Mays, and Juan Marichal, et.al.. Then my Dad took my brother and I to Fenway for the first of many times and I was like, gone, man.

I recall some unpleasant implications but do not remember the bald use of epithets traitor or enemy from the DarkLord or Rove or Rummy. Ari had that "watch what you say" thing but I think he was inelegant (and p!ssed off) not Stasi-ish.

This is because I am a hard core leftist, a socialist no less. I've heard it so many times, it must be true.* Republicans are pretty sure there is little or no difference between socialists and fascists (totalitarian state control of means of production, etc.) and well I am sure we can all agree, fascists are not liberal.

*"If you support The Democrat party; Then you are also supporting the makeover of America into this Marxist/Socialist Society." actual quote from someone over at the Fix right now

54465446 wrote,
"So for all you Hillary fans out there who are so in love with her IQ, answer me this.

How come this woman with no money, no connections, no influence and supposedly no brains can get herself elected Governor of Alaska, VP candidate for President and now become a multi-millionaire all without any help from her husband, while Hillary can't do anything unless it's handed to her? (except for the nomination which was handed to her, which she dropped!)"
-------

Poor Liam about spit out his dentures when he read this. I can't think of a more pathetic figure in American politics than Coattail Clinton. She was thoroughly humiliated by Slick Willie. He rubbed her nose in crap and made her lick it up. And then she blamed it all on a vast rightwing
conspiracy. There must have been divine intervention to keep someone so weak and delusional out of the White House. Doesn't she have even an iota of self respect? For independence, accomplishment, and strength of character, Hillary wouldn't make a pimple on Sarah Palin's butt. No brag, just fact.

FORTUNE -- In the fall of 1996, I sat inside weekly strategy meetings of conservative activists, as part of research for my book, Gang of Five, chronicling the rise of the baby-boomer right. The war-room host was famed anti-tax activist Grover Norquist and with Bill Clinton on the verge of re-election, the question on the table was this: How to convince lawmakers to open impeachment proceedings against the President?

Mind you, this was a full year before any one had ever heard the name Monica Lewinsky. But the activists -- briefed by Republican staff investigators on Capitol Hill -- were certain they could find something, anything, in Kenneth Starr's Whitewater investigation to justify booting him from office. The atmosphere was so thick with thirst for political blood that one activist, a lawyer, finally felt compelled to cut in: "I don't think we ought to go around impeaching presidents lightly."..."

Clearly, that lawyer was a socialist. But this bit of insider history tells you the game that was and is being played. Elections don't count because any President who is not a modern "conservative" is, axiomatically, illegitimate. Cynical? It's really worse than that. It is verging on a species of psychosis where nothing and no one matters but self.

And take a look at Easton's last graph...

"If GOP leaders keep that in mind, they might be able to move toward 2012 on Barack Obama's campaign pledge -- arguably his greatest shortcoming as president so far -- to pursue "unity of purpose over conflict and discord."

This gives you a good bead on the strategy of the last two years - "defeat any progress towards unity/bipartisan cooperation because that will discredit Obama's central election theme and political philosophy"

No time to do the research right now, but I do recall Rove saying, in 2005:

"Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers."

As for Fenway -- what magic! I love the Giants, but there was no denying that Candlestick was an absolute pit of a ballpark.

[@ 7:39 on November 1, 2010PM shrink2 Posted: "I am not a liberal."]
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
It's a good thing, 'cause liberals make great fascists, leftists-socialists make great useful jack-wagon riders and foot-draggers in a society headed for chaos, then when the mayhem is suddenly over they make good targets for the (SS) to practice on.

As a famous and infamous lawyer, liar, and ex-impeached, but not removed first lady once said: "Careful what you wish for".

Hard cores make the best targets, but then you could always pretend to be a communist who would be to the Wright of the Rightists.

...or you could straighten up, fly right, and join US on the USS Prosperity on it's way back to the shores of good and plenty of it.

" "Mike Tomasky, on the meaning of tomorrow's expected losses: "The Democrats are completely unable to defend their vision of society." You beat me to that one. He's right, of course. Figuring out why is the challenge. Posted by: bernielatham"

Easy enough to explain. The entire corpusm of Republican political thought can be put in one sound byte and repeated three times in a thirty second commercial. It takes time and thought to explain the democratic party's core values, and more time and more thought to expand the core principles to real world curve fitting. It also takes time and thought to listen to the Democratic principles and more time and more thought to understand them and fit them into your personal world view.

On a campaign platform, parsing Adam Smith, John Kenneth Galbraith, and John Maynard Keynes so you can begin explaining why extending the Bush Tax Cuts is a bad idea, is probably a bad idea. Just say that the Rich don't deserve those welfare for the wealthy benefits.

Explaining why, although a single payer system could provide health care with a big reserve in case the worries of the next flu pandemic proved well founded, and why those good Republicans who want to opt out of a Federal health care System until they are broke and dieing are bad for the country and equally bad for their own health, and explaining that paying for people to work with their doctors to get living wills and end of life instructions down in a form that prevents them from being welded to plastic tubes and artificial life extenders till they have no dignity at all and no way to ask to end the undignified and painful and painfully unnecessary end of life fight is not "Death Panels" is just too long winded and hard to parse. (Just try diagramming that sentence). Say instead that the Republican plan for health care is for you to hope you get struck by lightening and a freight train at the same time before you get some painful, untreatable, and horribly expensive condition, like living to be 90.

Say that the Republicans had a full Century since a nominal Republican first proposed National Health Care and Rich Doctors convinced Rich Republicans that that was a bad idea to cobble together a Republican Hea;th Care Plan, and so far all they can find is a plan where owners of major Medical Insurance COMPANIES are among the few Americans who really don't have to worry about paying their medical bills.

"Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) — who said last week that his goal for the next Congress is to defeat President Obama in 2012 — noted today that Republicans “need to view this [election] with humility and gratitude. This is not about us…there is no poll data showing the public is in love with us.”" http://thinkprogress.org/2010/11/01/steele-truth-gop-validation/

Those two quotes from the boy deserve a bit of thought.

McConnell confesses that his party is unloved (true, it polls below dems). So, is there some goal to become loved? Perhaps by eviscerating Medicare? Tax cuts to the top 2% for upholstery upgrades in their Lears? Cancelling the minimum wage? Prohibiting abortions for women gang-raped?

None of that looks promising in the "then they'll love us" task.

But that won't be the game at all. The real game is to be found in the first quote. Destroy the current Presidency.

In other words - crank up the hatred/dissatisfaction with Obama so that even if Republicans are unloved, Obama will be unloved more.

Meanwhile (and it's a good thing if viewed through the lens of this 'strategy') the country goes to hell.

"So, is there some goal to become loved?" Do you need to love your accountant, or your surgeon for that matter to have a successful relationship? If so, why?

"Perhaps by eviscerating Medicare?" So, the 1/2 trillion Obamacare takes out of medicare is a sign of love and not equivalant to "eviscerating" Medicare? Kind of a 'burn the village to save it scenario?'

"crank up the hatred/dissatisfaction with Obama so that even if Republicans are unloved, Obama will be unloved more."

Barry's done a heckuva jog cranking up the "hatred/dissastifaction" himself. I suppose that when Barry talks about enemies he's refering to Marko's American Taliban book? Maybe he could demonstrate some competence in governing. Show us bitter clinger's that the best government can deliver is not a 6 hour wait at the Social Security office to replace your card, or the assumption that all business are depriving the government of revenue and demanding 1099's on $600 or more expenditures.

That seems to be the story this year - if a democrats adopts Republican positions, he has a chance.

But after doing that, what is the point of being a democrat???

Manchin is still going to be a democrat in the Senate, and vote to put democratic leadership in place - the voters in West Virginia have to say that. I hope the papers make clear that the "hickey" phrase came from a company which was firewalled off from the Republican candidate.

I don't think Manchin will win.

The Republicans might just take control of the Senate - there are many indications the Republicans will get more votes than the polls indicate.

"Kevin Drum pushes back against the inevitable "liberal overreach" claims, pointing out that progressive reforms have always come in big, brief bursts."
---------------------------------------------

What Kevin doesn't tell you is they've always been wildly unpopular and always set off a political backlash. The New Deal was every bit as unpopular in FDR's time as healthcare reform is now. We had riots in the streets during the civil rights era and I can still hear the blood-curdling howls of socialized medicine when medicare came in -- and this was during the cold war when calling something socialist still meant something to anyone besides right-wing loonies.

It's just human nature to fear all change and to hate the things we fear, so if you want to accomplish big things you have to expect they're going to come with big fights attached. We just have to dig in and hold our ground as best we can so that we can build on the accomplishments of the last year and a half once the smoke clears.

DDAWD said: "This is more a referendum on the failure of Obama to achieve his policies than on the policies themselves."

I think that's exactly right.

There's been a big fat dilemma in here for me and I'm still on the horns of it. How to get needed things done without ramping up something like a full-scale blue/red war? His content and demeanor from the bully pulpit would have to change markedly, I think, and that too has consequences.

Lots of work can be done by surrogates but that wouldn't be enough. Or he could run the show as Dilulio witnessed the Bush crowd doing it (everything run by the political arm) but that inevitably pushes the enterprise into a propaganda mode rather than what I think we'd prefer.

So, other than to say I'd like to see more teeth and less smile, I'm not sure what the most proper and effective path might be presently. The single clarifying aspect is what we'll end up with if the WH and party and progressives generally don't succeed.

I recall some unpleasant implications but do not remember the bald use of epithets traitor or enemy from the DarkLord or Rove or Rummy. Ari had that "watch what you say" thing but I think he was inelegant (and p!ssed off) not Stasi-ish.

Could be my general POV or bad dog-whistle reception.

Posted by: tao9 | November 1, 2010 7:38 PM
=====================

So you're forgetting that Valerie Wilson was outed as a CIA agent because her husband wrote an editorial in the WaPo?

How about putting the former Governor of Alabama in jail?

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/02/hbc-90002479

Firing District Attorneys for not politicizing the DOJ to Karl's standards?

http://alturl.com/ujste

That's just the tip of the iceberg. Sometimes I wonder if a requirement of being a Republican is not remembering beyond last week.
~

The story of Dean could really be a case study for the democratic party.

For some odd reason, the democratic establishment was so convinced that Dean would win the general election in 2004, that the forces that be organized to defeat him.

Apparently large sums of money was put into committees designed to defeat Dean.

One person behind this effort was Hillary, who was afraid that a Dean victory in 2004 would make it difficult for her to run for President in 2008, which was her plan.

So, these forces all organized - and worked to defeat Dean so the nomination would fall to John Kerry - and some of these forces actually did so because they thought Kerry would lose to Bush that year. Howard Dean - a real story.

The Republicans took control of Congress in 1994 and didn't get a single budget done on time from then on. The budgets got passed later and later and were basically essential budgets that didn't more than meet minimum needs. And most were basically Clinton's Budget because the R's could never decide what they could agree to add or delete. The were Clinton Budgets passed in desperation when the two day a week Congresses had to pass something.

"Benjy Sarlin digs through the history and finds that the pundits were way off in 1994, which is food for thought, though it seems unlikely they'd be so far off this time around."
---------------------------------------------

They're actually pretty wrong about as often as not it seems. If anyone really kept careful track of their track records and called them on all the stuff they get wrong, probably no one would ever listen to them again. On the day before the 1998 mid-terms the pundits were almost universally predicting that Republicans would gain a supermajority in the House and take over the senate (when of course they ended up down a few house seats and the senate was a push).

In 2002, all speculation right up to election day centered around whether Democrats would pick up more or less seats than the opposition party usually does in a mid-term, and of course Republican ended up with a net gain. In 2006, people were fretting right up to the week before the election about whether Democrats could really pick up the 15 seats they needed to regain the House and no one seriously believed they could run the table on the senate.

I actually made a spreadsheet of the pundit predictions in 2006 and if they were erring to the side of Republicans this year to the same extent they did then, Republicans would probably net about 15-20 new seats in the House. If they're off in the Democrats' favor even as much as Cook was were in 2002, it's all hail speaker Boehner. If they're straight down the middle, Democrats probably hang onto the House by a seat or two.

But handicapping house races is still as much art as science and gross miscalculations are by no means uncommon. I have noticed that when they pull a real blooper, it tends to be in the direction of the prevailing narrative, which make sense because there are so many judgment calls involved. But I wouldn't bank on that. Either way, we'll know the answers soon enough. Nothing to do now but get out the vote and hope for the best.

But if you are voting for Republicans, I will discount your claim and rename it "Kevin Willis style voter: too embarrassed by the Republican party to endorse much of their b.s., but not embarrassed enough to vote for anyone else".
~

"The Republicans took control of Congress in 1994 and didn't get a single budget done on time from then on. The budgets got passed later and later and were basically essential budgets that didn't more than meet minimum needs. And most were basically Clinton's Budget because the R's could never decide what they could agree to add or delete. The were Clinton Budgets passed in desperation when the two day a week Congresses had to pass something.

Nice try but Clinton was a Democrat.

Try again.

Posted by: ceflynline"

I wonder who they are trying to kid by trying to convince us that the GOP balanced the budget during the Clinton years. Like we KNOW what happens when Congress and the WH are GOP controlled. We had six years of it. They didn't balance the budget. They moved in the opposite direction! They had the tax cuts. They had the wars. They had Medicare part D.

No wonder qb1 believes the idea of doing one's own research is a liberal pathology. Because anyone who looks up the facts rather than swallow the first FOX News nonsense they hear isn't going to remotely blame the Dems for the current deficits.

Okay, I'm done in doin' GOTV. Three days in a row of phone calls and my voice is finally gone. We're okay in CA, managed to stave off the CEOs this time around and the big oil companies fighting for the right to pollute, LOL, but I think legalizations going down and my local guy looks like he'll lose although we made a huge push for him the last 3 days, so we'll see. We may be within striking distance but it's hard to tell.

Here's my big prediction, Reid squeaks out a winner and so does Alex Sink in FL.

I remember 1994 differently - I thought that over the summer the Republicans were thought to be ahead. But through the campaign, the democrats were thought to come back - so it was believed the democratic losses would be minimal.

We all know the democratic losses that year were massive - which was blamed on Hillary's health care plan - which the Clintons had dropped during the summer.

This time, Obama actually pushed his program through, in contrast to the Clinton's dropping theirs, which was considered a good move to limit the damage.

This time, Obama has made no significant moves or concessions to limit the damage.

a) in 1935, the 8% of Americans who thought FDR's pre-war stimulus initiatives were too small turned out to be as correct about that as Paul Krugman likely is now -- but the point was just as moot because FDR was as constrained by political reality as president Obama is, and

b) it took a world war to force sufficient ~government spending~ to finally end the great depression.

“Barry's done a heckuva jog cranking up the "hatred/dissastifaction" himself.”

Indeed. In Bernie’s sheltered and bizarre understanding of the world, everyone is a helpless victim of Republican manipulation. Dislike of Obama and/or his policies cannot be the result of the considered (or even careless) judgment of him by individuals. It can only be the result of a Republican strategy to “make” people dislike him. Helpless also is Obama, who apparently engages in no political strategy to be “loved” or to discredit his political opponents, despite (or is it because of?) the fact that he is the smartest and most charismatic president, and perhaps person, in the history of the world. Again, everyone is a victim of Republican malfeasance.

Bernie is the classic example of the old adage…if your only tool is a hammer, every thing looks like a nail. Frankly, his schitick is so one sided, blind, and frankly whacky, I sometimes wonder even how many of the liberals here buy into it.

It was a lot of fun. Everyone seemed to have a good time even if the audio wasn't great at times.

They seriously underestimated the amount of people for sure as the crowds extended out another few blocks where the speaker system didn't reach.

The Huffington post bus riders didn't get to the metro stop on the other side of town until like 1:30 meaning they got to the rally for probably the last 40 min or so and most likely didn't hear a bit of it.

But hey, they got a free ride down there.

I didn't see any articles about that mess up on Huffington Post for some reason.

We will have to see - however the 1930s expansion of the Interstate Commerce Clause - hence the name the "elastic clause" - is highly suspect.

I would imagine that most students who read this caselaw are a bit surprised that the caselaw decisions rest on such shakey grounds.

So, to expand caselaw which is already shakey - and stretched - as its name elastic implies, would seem problematic.

In the field of health care, there is also an important issue. There is now 200 years of States exercing powers in the health care field. So, that traditional recognition of health care being a part of States' powers has to weigh heavily.

"Okay, I'm done in doin' GOTV. Three days in a row of phone calls and my voice is finally gone. We're okay in CA, managed to stave off the CEOs this time around and the big oil companies fighting for the right to pollute, LOL, but I think legalizations going down and my local guy looks like he'll lose although we made a huge push for him the last 3 days, so we'll see. We may be within striking distance but it's hard to tell.

Here's my big prediction, Reid squeaks out a winner and so does Alex Sink in FL.

Posted by: lmsinca"

Tomorrow is the big day. Got pediatric clinic until about 3 PM tomorrow. I'll try to drive some people to the polls tomorrow, but our GOTV has been full churn since early voting started a few weeks ago. We haven't been finding anyone really to go and vote. If the biggest and heavily Dem district in Louisiana has a good turnout and the planets line up right, Vitter might fall.

But you have to think that Republicans really minimized this environment with their extremist nominations. As much as the environment favored Dems in the last two cycles, they also helped themselves with candidates that were amenable to their districts.

I agree with you. Bernie imbues the Republicans with far to much power. He reminds me of a lot of lefties (here and elsewhere in the world (World!)) that think the CIA is infallible and all bad things that happen are attributable to them. My opinion is if he knew the "real" truth, I don't know if he'd laugh or cry.

Well of course the pundits were predicting Republican gains in 1994, silly. Up until 1998, the president's party had lost seats in congress in every mid-term in 60 years or so and that was universally assumed to be the natural order of things. The average is somewhere in the neighborhood of 25 seats I believe. But 50+ is still unusual.

If you had actually read my comment though, you'd know that I wasn't actually talking about 1994. Greg was. I really don't have strong opinions about the quality of punditry in the 1994 midterms myself, so if you want to argue '94, I guess you'll just have to take it up with Greg or the author of the article he linked to.

I recognize that what follows may seem somewhat off topic. But this will be my last week posting here with any regularity so I think I ought to begin tying things up with a confession followed by a short survey for my future uses, if you would be so kind.

Confession: I have had, for some months now, a sexual fantasy involving Sharron Angle and myself.

I'm sure we'll have a lot of gloaters around tomorrow night here at the Plumline election night party, but I think there may still be a few bright spots for Dems. We'll see I guess. Alaska is going to be another interesting one to watch.

I'm still leaning toward "enthusiasm gap" as the most compelling force this mid-term election. Republicans just aren't that popular but the Tea Party thinks a lot of themselves and their influence so they're hyper-energized to vote. It'll be interesting to see how all that shakes out after the election. I tend to think the Politico piece re Palin was pretty accurate.

Anyway, have fun voting tomorrow everyone and give a neighbor a ride please.

I don't about the quality of pundits - and the actual results. The recounting of this study really does not seem to add up and I don't want to go through it year-by-year.

______________________

The Giants winning the World Series though is considered to be good for Jerry Brown and Barbara Boxer - voters who are in a good mood as a result of their hometeam winning the World Series tend to be kinder to the incumbents.

Jerry Brown is not really the incumbent, but the democrats are pretty much the incumbent party in California.

LOL! So now you're a constitutional scholar in addition to being a hairdresser's fashion plate? I hope you can forgive if I'm as skeptical about that as I am of your claims regarding the quality of your coiffure.

Earlier in this thread you blamed Clinton for single handedly ruining our economy without a mention of any Congressional assistance. Now Clinton isn't responsible for his balanced budgets, Congress gets the credit? That is a fun little shell game you're playing.

You might have a point there - however I have to point this out - Clinton SHOULD have stuck to the traditional democratic positions on those issues - instead he SOLD US ALL OUT.

Without Clinton selling us out, the parties would have been deadlocked on these issues and the laws would have never changed.

Specifically, to review, I am referring to :

- the free trade deals

- Clinton's deregulation of Wall Street

- Clinton's dealings with China and Indonesia

- the repeal of Glass Steagll

- the Subprime Mortgage programs, which were Clinton, Cuomo and Gillibrand

NO one elected Clinton, as a democrat, to sell out to Wall Street or to foreign interests. Up to that point in history, it was a given that the democrats would block any such programs - the democratic party was supposed to be the firewall.

Clinton sold us out -

Clinton sold us out to the same corporate interests which the democrats now hate - the same corporate interests that the democrats now say are all Republican - that isn't true

Those corporate interests have bought out both parties.

But it worse when there is supposed to be deadlock - things are not supposed to go through - and all of a sudden one party sells out and the corporate interests get all they want.

That is what Clinton did to this nation.

It's true.

Plus he let Bin Laden go - when Sudan offered him up - and Clinton pulled most of our spies out the Middle East - so by 2001 the CIA had little idea what was going on there.

Bill Clinton had no idea what he was doing - and he made a good number of serious mistakes - and still he was far better than Obama.

Who knows what the final tally will be on the damages as a result of Obama.

Boston DEM for 20yrs, but that doesn't really count cause it's a one-party town. Joe Moakley was my USRep, liked the guy. Never once voted for a K or a Kerry because of a rebel Irish dignity and common f'n sense. Kerry was a known jerk about towne. 2004 was cake for me.

Moved to the CapDist, voted for Mike McNulty (NY21, Dem) twice. Knew him from my parish. He was a Rep for 20 years. The Pelosi Visigoths made his life suck, threatened to primary him and he said "Nuts" (literally).

Was actually intrigued briefly by the "Transformational" Lightgiver. Then I did about an hour and a half of googling, found this guy thru the JustOneMinute blog:

http://stephen-diamond.com/

Dr. Diamond knew the then Sen. Obama from the early Chi days. Professor D is a straight-on lefty. He was not, uh, enthusiastic due to a presumably overdeveloped lib aversion to BS'ers, crooks and WeatherUndergroundMuckerz.

Obviously. But if he don't know by now, he ain't never gonna get to know.

The test of patriotism isn't waving a flag. It's about doing the legwork to ensure you're making the right voting decisions. If someone can't be bothered to spend ten minutes to verify Glen Beck's statements, well, that tells you all you need to know.

Here's something else that tells you all you need to know. Palin threw her support around Tancredo today and is robo-calling CO as we speak. If there's a worse pol in the country I haven't met him yet.

One more then I'm out. Here's a list of right wing tax initiatives around the country that could ruin your state's ability to control their budget. Believe me, being from CA, I watch out for these and we have several on the ballot tomorrow again. Anyway, here's the list if you're interested and unsure which way to vote on some of these.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Krugman’s “fundamental mismatch” will be put to the test with a string of anti-tax ballot initiatives in several states on Tuesday. What can be expected if they come to pass can be seen in California today, where a rule requiring a two-third super-majority for any law that results in a tax increase -- a rule that has given a conservative minority an effective veto -- is putting the once-Golden State deep and structurally into the red. Making the state even more ungovernable are the effects of the passage of Prop 13 30 years ago, which cut real estate tax revenues dramatically. Incredibly painful cuts are now being enacted to keep the state government afloat.

But voters will also decide on a handful of progressive measures on Tuesday that would undo some of the damage done by anti-tax crusaders in a couple of key states. According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities (CPBB), “Some of the ballot measures would make it easier for states to balance their budgets without excessive cuts in areas like education and health care. Others would make it much harder.”

Biden had a rally tonight, in Delaware, his home state. Only 200 people showed up.

I wonder if Coons was there. If Coons can only get 200 people to a rally in Wilmington with Biden there - WOW.

I don't know - keep an eye on Delaware - I think there will be a significant sympathy vote for Christine O'Donnell. She doesn't deserve the treatment she has gotten and people will support her. Coons is no great candidate either.

Christine O'Donnell really has star power.

Christine O'Donnell could win, and she would immediately be a force on Capitol Hill - so what if the Tea Party has 10 Senators. How bad could it be ???

Yea, I think Christine O'Donnell is more than a star, she has star-power.

If Christine O'Donnell gets elected, she will be a real star on Capitol Hill.

Biden got 200 people to a rally tonight. If that is not some indication, I don't know what is.

We need some regular poeple on Capitol Hill. Right now they are all a bunch of sell-outs, chasing campaign contributions. Some new faces will at least try to cut the budgets. Coons will disappear the first week and probably never be heard from again. Christine O'Donnell will have the camaras on her all the time.

But not to take back the comment entirely, just to change "enemies" to "opponents."

That is the thing with Obama - he never seems to do retractions very well. And the reluctance makes the situation worse. A politician is supposed to be naturally "making nice" with everyone.

Obama has a Ramadan dinner - and says he wants the Mosque.

Then on the tarmac at an airport, he walks it back a bit.

Then we hear later that Obama really didn't walk it back.

It is ridiculous. A guy who knew what he is doing would have never said "enemies" in the first place. And Obama doesn't even know how to get out the mess he created.

Clinton would have had three different stories going within 48 hours - and 5 different girls in those stories - and everyone would have been so distracted the original issue would have meant nothing.

The problem with Clinton is one looks at him now, and you wonder how he is going to lie to you now. I really can't believe that people want to campaign with him - or even let him close to the campaign volunteers.

By the way, if Christine O'Donnell is elected, she takes office right away as well.

She is actually running for a 4 year unexpired term which originally won by Joe Biden.

Christine O'Donnell was Biden's opponent in 2008. Interesting that the Republicans thought enough of her to make her their state-wide nominee before. However, now things are different. I think she has a better chance today than people think.

It is all about turn-out - and all the generic indicators are favoring the Republicans right now.

The New York media barely mentioned that Obama was in Bridgeport, Connecticut over the weekend. Many in Connecticut are in the New York media market.

It just seems that the "enthusiasm gap" is turning to virtual silence at the Obama and Biden rallies.

I just can not believe that Obama did not come up with a viable message in the last few weeks. Are Obama and the democrats trying to throw the election? Do they want the Republicans to win the Senate? Has Obama decided he is in a better position with that situation? It just seems that way

Christine O'Donnell could win, and she would immediately be a force on Capitol Hill

A force for stupid? For creationist gibberish? For punchlines? For denying rape victims emergency contraception and forcing them to carry those pregnancies to term? A force for cutting the social services that the new mother will need to support herself and her new child?

Oh I know, a source for informed commentary constitutional questions....right....

I have posted this already here before You guys should stop complaining because, one the health care we have now isnt as good as it was supposed to be. also the law has just been signed so give it some time. so if u want to say u have the right to choose tell that to ur congress men or state official. If you do not have insurance and need one You can find full medical coverage at the lowest price check http://bit.ly/bandYw .If you have health insurance and do not care about cost just be happy about it and believe me you are not going to loose anything!

Heh. However, I think that's the incorrect (thought admirably optimistic) way to look at it. It's more like General Motors TKOs manufacturers of buggy whips.

Print media is dying. Various appendages may, on life support, be sustained almost indefinitely. But it is dying, and most of the bits and parts are going to die off, or move to a lower-revenue, lower-cost web-only format. Or as vanity products of organizations with other streams of revenue.

That's a daring prediction Bernie. Really going out on a limb to suggest that a political pundit will pontificate on what happens in the election, especially regarding a topic he's already spoken about.

What other predictions have you...that this morning's San Fransisco Chronicle will lead with the Giants World Series win?

@MyHairLooksLikeTheRainForest: "It could be 8 to 10 Tea Party Senators. It's going to be great. These people are committed to reducing the deficit - and getting the ECONOMY GOING AGAIN."

Seriously? I know it's performance art, but these are fallible humans, prone to all the sins the flesh is heir to, and the Republicans record re: reducing the deficit mediocre, at best.

Also, there are not any buttons in the Oval Office, or in the congressional chambers, that say: "Press Here to Improve Economy". Those folks can give a little nudge or get onerous burdens out of the way, but it's America's businesses and individual citizens that end up getting the ECONOMY GOING AGAIN. In all caps.

I'm all for handing the Democrats their walking papers, but let's not be Pollyanna about what a Republican controlled congress and/or senate is going to mean.

I suspect it will be less cutting the deficit and more punishing Obama. Which you might like but I don't think will actually do anything to get the economy going.

Benen doesn't believe it for a minute and wants to know which alternate universe Brooks is living in. I think we're in for a rough ride over the next two years, it's all about defeating Obama and nothing else IMO.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Indeed, the number of Republicans talking about shutting down the government next year is already pretty large, and it's getting bigger. A growing number of Republicans are even talking about deliberately pushing the United States government to literally default on its debts early next year.

Brooks would have us believe the reckless loudmouths are just bloviating, and that the GOP leadership will be far more sensible. That would be the leadership team that features Mitch McConnell (who insisted just last week that his top priority is destroying President Obama), John Boehner (who proclaimed the other day, "This is not a time for compromise"), and Mike Pence (who insisted two weeks ago that Republicans must not even try to work with the White House).

The point of Brooks' column seems to be that voters shouldn't fear Republican excesses after the midterms. I'm quite certain that's bad advice."

Seriously? I know it's performance art, but these are fallible humans, prone to all the sins the flesh is heir to, and the Republicans record re: reducing the deficit mediocre, at best.

Also, there are not any buttons in the Oval Office, or in the congressional chambers, that say: "Press Here to Improve Economy". Those folks can give a little nudge or get onerous burdens out of the way, but it's America's businesses and individual citizens that end up getting the ECONOMY GOING AGAIN. In all caps.

I'm all for handing the Democrats their walking papers, but let's not be Pollyanna about what a Republican controlled congress and/or senate is going to mean.

I suspect it will be less cutting the deficit and more punishing Obama. Which you might like but I don't think will actually do anything to get the economy going.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis
---------------------------------------

That's a nice breath of fresh air to start off election day.
Businesses are acting very cautiously. They are making money and saving it up for reasons that probably vary from business to business, although Republicans will blame tax increases and health care reform and Democrats will blame greed. The more things change...

The GOP will be passing spending cut bills, so Obama can either veto those (proving once and for all he's not for reducing the deficit) OR he can go along for the ride and sit in the back of the bus ...

LOL! If the GOP were institutionally capable of passing spending cut bills, they had ample opportunities to prove it from 2001 - 2006, when they controlled the White House and both houses of congress. They didn't. They won't.

PS: Were you consciously aware that you really just said the President Obama, whom we may note is black, could go sit in the back of the bus? Or was that just an unintentional little slip of the tongue, a la professor Freud, perhaps?

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.